------- Comment #27 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:13 ------- (In reply to comment #21) > Re. comment #14 "I am a bit irritated why this bug survived the 4.4.0 > and 4.5.0 release.": Yes, well, ARM maintainers have been in the CC-list for > this bug since the beginning, and apparently it was even too much trouble for > them to see if this is a regression or not... :-( > > Anyway, many thanks to Sebastian Huber for identifying the revision that > introduced (or exposed) this bug. >
So this ARM maintainer, proposed a fix for the problem (a generic bug, not a back-end bug). But because it seems that generating correct code on all targets isn't a priority, it was rejected. The compiler shouldn't be generating unsafe code by default; back-ends shouldn't need to paper over bugs in the MI code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
